If Europeans were "superior" back then (in gear, logistics, tactics, etc.)...

Well yeah, 40 000 professional cavalrymen against 2-3000 knights and a fuckton of levies is going to end that way.

Amphibious invasions are fucking hard. OPPOSED amphibious invasions in the Middle Ages are essentially impossible.

Weren't the troops made of gooks?

What? Poland lost the first time despite outnumbering them 30k to 10k. Hungary lost the first time but with inconclusive numbers, but much closer than what you're saying.

Mongols were skilled, but not professional at all in terms of what they had to work with.

Turns out a cavalry oriented military does for shit naval operations like amphibious landing.

>b-but they have Chinese!
Who were under the Mongs in their race based Caste System and whose admirals didnt get to command shit. Just consider the fact that Mongols dumbly grabbed every boat in the Chinese empire for their invasion without bothering to ask the difference between seagoing and riverine/coastal craft.

> What? Poland lost the first time despite outnumbering them 30k to 10k.

Lol no, the Poles had 3-8000.

Poland could not field 30 000 even during the 17th century lol.

Most of the numbers against the Mongols are heavily inflated, like that ridiculous 80 000 Rus at Kalka.

Mongols are the exception

>has no clue that Holy Roman Empire helped the Poles out

Europeans were not necessarily superior, it was a continent fractured politically and culturally for most of its medieval period. They may have been more superior in gear in that they were able to acquire better materials to create their armaments (say a better grade of iron than what was available in Japan) and had a society that enabled for the growth of an intellectual elite in the monasteries and churches as well as the formation of a sophisticated urban merchant class in the cities. Logistics and tactics are dependent on the geography of the continent as well as the accepted norms of warfare that are built around the societies which fight them. For example when the Polish went to fight the Mongols they were not aware of their tactic to send in a suicide squad that would harass the enemy engage with them and then pull back so as to imitate a retreat but into a larger force, the Polish saw this as a full scale retreat and sent out all of their cavalry who were obliterated in the fighting. Also agrarian and sedentary societies have a difficult time fighting and defending against an army that can cover more terrain than they can and are a force to designed never to stop moving. This was demonstrated against almost all of the sedentary societies which the Mongols fought.

Go away John Green

They didn't. No holy roman forces left the empire, all they did was muster and move men to the borders.
Sedentary societies spent most of history shitting on nomads. The mongols, like literally every other steppe people to achieve anything, attacked at a time when their neighbors were weak and divided.

>Has no clue they did not show up in time

The only fight between anything similar to knights (redeleros) and samurai (ronin) was a european win. Get fucked bruv.

They made military reforms to counter Mongol tactics. Heavily armoured knights, crossbowmen and fortifications beat horse archers.

Maybe because they werent hidden on some island
Also, the only real knights were in France, England (French/Norman nobility) and to a lesser extend Germany
Poles and other irrelevant Eastern Yuros had some armor and shit too, but they were of shit quality and not real knights as popular culture think of when hearing that word

Chechens defeated them twice with guerilla tactics and no typhoons. Those horse raping chinks are overrated desu

...

> the only real knights were in France, England (French/Norman nobility) and to a lesser extend Germany

Ridiculous statement.

Germany would have even more, not to a lesser extent.

Italy, Poland and Hungary equally so.

Unlike now, Eastern Europe was pretty much on par with Western Europe, in fact, the princess of Kiev wrote about how shitty Paris was compared to Rus cities when she married the French prince and had to move there.

It was exactly the Mongols who burned half of Eastern Europe to the ground and set it back so much.

>Fucking proto-Ukrainians helping mongols themselves
And people wonder why we spam in every Ukrainian thread

Except you're fucking wrong. Hungary, and to a lesser extent Poland, underwent MASSIVE reforms in order to acquire a modern fighting force and system of fortifications, because they didn't have them during the first invasion. They lacked stone fortifications, they lacked armored cavalry, and they lacked crossbows.

>Eastern Europe was pretty much on par with Western Europe
No it wasn't. Eastern europe was a thinly populated shithole and had utterly different military tactics. The low population density meant it would NEVER be able to field the large bodies of armored infantry and missile troops that Europe would, or of heavy cavalry. They certainly didn't have fucking knights.
>muh kiev
Kiev was a beautiful city with shit fortifications.

That user is utterly retarded for thinking the Germans lacked knights, however.

> Except you're fucking wrong.

Except you went talking about fortifications after mentioning knight comparison like an autistic beetle.

Hungary and Poland entered the feudal system since the 11th century and had a massive influx of German knights for over 150 years by the time the Mongols came.

> No it wasn't. Eastern europe was a thinly populated shithole

lol no, Hungary at the time had the same population as the whole of Germany.

> Kiev was a beautiful city with shit fortifications.

lol, it was larger than most western cities and had stone walls comparable to anything the western capitals had.

>No it wasn't. Eastern europe was a thinly populated shithole and had utterly different military tactics.
It certainly didn't stop Poland from successfully repelling hre invasions or wrecking czechs/kiev rus

>They lacked stone fortifications
Poland had fortification, but mainly on western borders. After first Mongol invasion they fortified also east
>they lacked armored cavalry
From relations of Ibrahim ibn Yaqub - Poland
had armoured cavalry. And it was 10thC.
> Eastern europe
Divination of Europe from 20thC, you sure must know things
>Eastern europe was a thinly populated shithole and had utterly different military tactics.
Kiev was one of the biggest cities in Europe at that time.
>The low population density meant it would NEVER be able to field the large bodies of armored infantry and missile troops that Europe would, or of heavy cavalry. They certainly didn't have fucking knights.
kek, and yet they keep two records - biggest cavalry battle and biggest cavalry charge

>kek, and yet they keep two records - biggest cavalry battle and biggest cavalry charge

Didnt know 1529 was middle age
You may as well cite Russian zerg rush during WW2

I guess the fact you only cited one part suggests that you agree with the rest. Now you should be apologizing for knowing shit and speaking about it, instead of mentioning 2WW. Zerg rush was more similar to things Germans did, so even here you are wrong.

Spam.

Stay mad, slav
Reminder that these are the countries people think of when they hear "Europe"

So you are using memes as source of your information. Boy, sure I am under impression of your vast knowledge about medieval Europe.

I think you are Irish

>Ireland

Those Japanese typhoons though. Were they an example of Veeky Forumstorical meme magic?

>Poland could not field 30 000 even during the 17th century lol.

Poland was fielding larger armies during 15th century.

>Also, the only real knights were in France, England (French/Norman nobility) and to a lesser extend Germany
>Poles and other irrelevant Eastern Yuros had some armor and shit too, but they were of shit quality and not real knights as popular culture think of when hearing that word

You are absolutely talking out of your ass here. Poland was fielding heavy cavalry in large numbers since 10th century. I have recently read Helmold of Bosau's chronicle for history of 12th century Northern Germany and even there, when briefly mentioning Poland, the chronicler mentions how terrifying the Polish cavalry is.

When?

Polish army during the ill-fated Moldavian campaign of 1497 numbered 40 000 combatants and far more followers.

>Sedentary societies spent most of history shitting on nomads

Why did your superior europeans loose the Battle of Nicopolis then, why did Timur defeat the Ottomans a few years later?
Not so superior anymore?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Nicopolis

> attacked at a time when their neighbors were weak and divided.

Timur defeated every other muslim superpower, while your superior europeons were shitting their pants in europe.

Genghis smashed the Khwarezmids and the Jin, while your superior europeans with their combined forced didn't even manage to get halfway to Mecca before getting kicked out of the middle east by muslims.

Poland fielded armies larger than that in the 15th century.

Subhuman, the Polish had begun to field heavy cavalry in massive numbers by the end of the 10th century.

> but they were of shit quality and not real knights as popular culture think of when hearing that word
You're trying to say that popular culture, a phenomenon that solely depends on repetition of content and self-promotional marketing is a proper tool of measurement of Medieval power? Where you from, If I may ask?

Twice larger army, in both cases, and in the Ottoman case, they nearly lost despite the numerical superiority.

Not to mention that Nicopolis was decided by a flanking heavy cavalry charge by the Serbs who arrived on battle.

>they nearly lost

Same could be said for any close battle EVER, doesn't excuse the terrible "conquests" of the europeans during the medieval ages.

>twice larger army

>The first-hand observer Johann Schiltberger, who had been taken captive by Bayezid during the Battle of Nicopolis and remained with him until the latter's own captivity whereupon he was transferred to Timur, gives the figures at "sixteen hundred thousand" for Timur and "fourteen hundred thousand" under Bayezid.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Ankara

>look at the our crusades the muslims nearly lost!

Europeans everyone!

Somehow serbish heavy cavalry stopped working against Timurs cavalry

>but heavy cavalry beats mongols!

> Same could be said for any close battle EVER

But the argument is not the same when the nearly loosing side is numerically superior.

> doesn't excuse the terrible "conquests" of the europeans during the medieval ages.

Conquests...it took the Ottomans over 150 years to conquer Bosnia lol.

> Somehow serbish heavy cavalry stopped working against Timurs cavalry

Yeah, those few hundred knights not deciding the battle between two largest armies in that part of the world really takes their importance off.

Will not mention the fact that those knights were the only section of the Ottoman army that maintained discipline, survived and managed to take the princes to safety.

>MUH JIN
So a weak, divided people who were happy to defect, and involved in another war at the time? Thank you for proving the point.

>Khwarezmids
Facing enough internal dissent that it dictated the deployment of their forces and doomed them. Final siege won via betrayal.

>asses hand to them by the Mongolians
You mean the same Mongolians who failed to conquer Novgorod, and who got BTFO by shit eating croatian hillmen and Hungarian castles?
Mongols were fucking overrated shit m8. Only worthwhile conquest was China, which they only accomplished because it was at its most divided since the god damn warring states period.
Japanese didnt BTFO the mongols although im sure they could have to, they just got lucky because of Typhoons.

europeans were far from superior to the east in the 13th century

The typhoons destroyed the mongol fleet after they had already lost several battles and been forced to retreat.

the actually invaded two times, the first they had some success because the Japanese were not expecting them and didnt have massed infantry but the campiagn got bogged down untill they messed up and the japanese slaughtered them.

the second time the japanese were ready and the mongols struggled to make beach head.

The only time Steppe horsemen defeated established powers is when they were at war already or sapped of their power. Unless you're counting pre-10th century Slavic tribes as all of Europe, no, the Mongols did not "wreck" Europeans. They wrecked their fellow meme-horsemen, during the
>Islamic
>golden
>Age

nomadic slavs are not europeans

Slavs were basically never nomadic though.

The Islamic Golden Age was long past before the Mongols ever came.

Abbasids did in themselves with decline via administrative failures, Turkics like the Seljuks finished it off, and the Mongols merely killed the tiny bit keeping it alive (Baghdad).

the Mongols brought an end to the best time in Islam for intellectuals when they btfo Baghdad.

Not really, they were the final nail to the coffin.

The Seljuks burned most of the Middle East to the ground already in the 10th/11th century, the Banu Hilal burned most of North Africa to the ground in the 10th century and the Quaramantians burned Arabia to the ground in the 10th century, actually burning Mecca and Medina to the ground like the lunatics they were;

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qarmatians#The_Qarmatian_Revolution

>But the argument is not the same when the nearly loosing side is numerically superior.

Somehow white people think there was no problem with defeating a numerically superior Persian army in Alexander's time, but when we fastforward to the 13th and 14th centuries they couldn't defeat numerically superior forces at all.

>Conquests...it took the Ottomans over 150 years to conquer Bosnia lol.

Oh let's looks at the crusades then:

>1095 to 1395 meaning 300 FUCKING YEARS
>achieved no long lasting terretorial gains, expect those in the first crusade, which they lost after a few years
And no, a few castles here and there don't mean shit when the enemy is 2 days of marching away

>most divided since the god damn warring states period.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Hattin

Did you forgot that you got defeated by a muslim state which at it's best could only put 40k troops on the ground? The later mamluks could assemble 100k+ armies as evidenced by their wars against the Ilkhanate. This is why you never ever sailed back for another crusade down there.

>Fail to defeat your first real enemy at a time when there was no technological desparity, despite trying for 200 years.
>shits on mongols for taking most of the known world
>still thinks they are worth shit
>currently can't even support your own population because of not having any children >BUT WE ARE SO SUPERIOR!

Im glad that your snobby race will get extinct by arabs, pakis and africans in future. Never forget how you got enslaved by a tiny race of money lenders who you couldn't keep in check and how the muslims dealt the finishing to your race.

Which is why they kicked the muslims out of the middle east, right?

>haha conquering the lands that the mongols conquered was easy, they were divided and stuff
>never holds persia and china together at once despite european kingdoms existing since the fall of the roman empire until now

>Ireland isn't united under one imperial banner
It's like you think good came from The Troubles

The Golden Age of Islam and all its knowledge have long since GTFO of the middle east and went to Egypt, Spain, Anatolia, and yes, Byzantine Lands.

Mongols just killed the husk of the once glorious Caliphate.

Japan had sea that kept the mongols away.

At first armies had no idea how to handle so many horse archers and cavalry, so Mongols were fucking everything up untill they reached mountains and then got BTFO hard enough to never dare to come back.

If rock is superior to scissors, why can scissors beat paper if paper beats rock? Checkmate, atheists.

> Oh let's looks at the crusades then:
> achieved no long lasting terretorial gains

They held the richest part of the Middle East for nearly 200 years lol,

> And no, a few castles here and there don't mean shit

No need, they held quite the territory and actually got it back after Hattin;

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barons'_Crusade#/media/File:Map_Crusader_states_1240-eng.png

> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Hattin

lol; battle Arsuf

> The later mamluks could assemble 100k+ armies as evidenced by their wars against the Ilkhanate

Yes, zerging like the locusts they were, proving my point.

Just as with Ottomans mounting 100-200k troops and still failing half the time.

They lost to fucking Moldavia and Croatia lmfao

> Im glad that your snobby race will get extinct

Not really, very soon technology will allow cloning and people will also start living for centuries, the whites will remain, if not even prosper again.

Believe or not, water is a great deterrent to cavalry based armies.

>Japanese were able to ward them off every time?
I know this is bait, but I have two words for you OP.
>Seasonal
>Typhoons
Psst...nothing personal...boats.

>Japan had sea that kept the mongols away.
Europe had Russia that kept major part of the mongols away.

>Sedentary societies spent most of history shitting on nomads
It's the other way around. Sedentary people only gained the advantage with the invention of firearms.

Pretty sure a katana would cut European steel plate like a watermelon. The katana is effectively the sharpest weapon known to mankind, folded over a thousand times, and capable of defeating anything if used properly. Once, I saw a trained modern samurai deflect modern bullets with his katana, finishing his demonstration unscathed.

The katana is light, yet powerful. Agile, yet durable. The true weapon of an elite warrior.

This is obvious bait, but people are so triggered by katana here they will fall for it

>Get to Poland
>Probe
>Lose
>Collapse
Also Japs had the weather on their side
Also back then means when exactly, Europe was much more globally successful later than the early 13th century

>"back then"
back then covers 2000 fucking years ... Europeans have been on top for 500 years since the Renaissance, and that is Western Euros only, excluding Germany most of the time, it was all France/Italy/Spain/England, none of which had signifcant encounters with the Mongols

And before that, when Mongols were relevant, so way before the Renaissance Europe was just middle-tier

>DISCUSSION ABOUT STEPPE NOMADS
>brings up the mamlukes
How relevant.
>roleplaying
>shit reading comprehension

You're either trolling or retarded. Which is it?

Wrong. Alexander shit on nomads, rome spent decades pissing on the parthians, The avars got beaten to a pulp long before the gun, the magayrs got beaten so badly it changed how they interacted with the rest of the world, and the Chinese beat the Xiongnu.

The mongols, meanwhile, got slaughtered in open battle when they returned to Europe.

Steppe nomads follow a very clear cycle of being either irrelevant, getting beaten by settled people, or attacking at extremely opportune times.

Its age old pasta you dumb fuck

Because of climate change, it was hard for Mongols to supply and mobilize cavalry in Europe.

And yes, climate change is real.

>butthurt sedentary

How are Cataphractoi not knights

Is this satire? I honestly can't tell.

The Mongols that got beat by the Japs were later diminished Mongols who were basically just Chinamen and we all know how good Chinamen are at waging war, not to mention Euros and Arabs both kicked the shit out of similar groups. The Mongols that beat the Euros were the OG Hard ass, yurt livin, horseback nappin, retreat feinitin, mass rapin, fucking wildmen. Also they never beat the most powerful European countries at the time, so there's that

Poles didn't have those.

And cataphracts are entirely different in terms of equipment, tactics, and their role in society.